PITTSBURGH (Legal Newsline) - A federal magistrate has sided with plaintiffs firm Berger Montague over a relative newcomer to consumer class actions, handing the Philadelphia law firm control of a case that has produced allegations of collusion, conspiracy and misleading advertising.
In a 10-page order issued Monday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Patricia Dodge acknowledged attorney Julie Peshersky Plitt of Oxman Law Group was the first to file a lawsuit against InventHelp, a company accused of defrauding would-be inventors by charging them for worthless patent advice. Pechersky Plitt filed the first case against InventHelp in June 2018 after being contacted by a disgruntled investor.
She later sought to have the case expanded into a class action, which is when Berger Montague entered the fray. She found out about the firm's involvement by filling out a contact form designed to recruit potential plaintiffs.
In her ruling, Judge Dodge said the fight between law firms led to a “highly acrimonious relationship” in which lawyers accused each other “of misconduct, unethical behavior and a lack of professionalism.” Pechersky Plitt said Berger Montague recruited clients with ads that neglected to spell out the firm’s involvement, using the complaint she drafted.
She also accused the Philadelphia firm of colluding with InventHelp management, declining to name individual executives as Perchersky Plitt had in her complaints, and engaging in settlement negotiations even before Berger Montague filed its first complaint.
The judge noted InventHelp supported Berger Montague’s bid for control of the litigation because it believes the litigation would “advance in a more coordinated, expeditious and cooperative manner.” The judge praised InventHelp’s “thoughtful oral argument which provided some further insight into the present acrimony in this case to date.”
While the court didn’t make any decisions about the specific allegations each firm made against the other, the order notes Berger Montague has more experience representing plaintiffs in consumer class actions. Berger Montague said it has expended 2,400 hours and $39,000 so far litigating the case.
“The Court declines …to engage in fact finding and credibility determinations with regard to the parties’ mudslinging because in large measure, these accusations are not relevant to the resolution of this matter, other than reinforcing the importance of appointing interim lead class counsel in this case,” the judge wrote. “The Court concludes that BMPC has significantly more experience handling consumer class actions than Oxman, particularly as lead class counsel.”
In handing control to Berger Montague, the court follows a common pattern in mass torts and class actions. Academics have noted that this type of litigation is dominated by a small number of repeat players who use their position at the head of the case to negotiate settlements and divide up fees among their allies.
As a newcomer to plaintiff class actions, Oxman Law lacked the longstanding relationships and history of sharing fees that leading class action firms have among themselves, dampening disputes over control.
Berger Montague’s appointment as interim class counsel can be changed later, the judge noted.